Welcome to the “Mad Max” world that President Obama envisions if the federal budget is reduced by 2.3 percent. It’s a scenario designed to provoke rage and hopelessness, and it certainly does, though not for the reasons Obama intends.

Instead, his claim that the $3.6 trillion budget can’t be trimmed by $85 billion without the country collapsing reveals the utter futility of believing he will ever save America from financial disaster. The nation is headed for ruin unless it cuts spending, but the president refuses to do anything about it. In fact, he argues we don’t spend enough, that we must “invest” more.

Consider that 40 cents of every dollar Washington already spends is borrowed or printed by the Federal Reserve. But rejecting any and all ways to do with less, Obama resorts to scare tactics and smears.

Republicans, he charged on Al Sharpton’s radio show, believe “nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations.” It’s a tired, false attack, and you have to wonder how he continues to say it with a straight face. Yet our president is unrestrained by truth or facts.

To believe his scenario on the impacts of the $85 billion in cuts, you have to believe the federal government is 100 percent efficient; that any penny cut from spending would damage the daily life of every American.

To see how preposterous the claim is, imagine a smaller example — a family with a weekly budget of $100. Under Obama’s math, cutting $2.30 a week would mean the family would have to give up its home, car and food.

It sounds crazy because it is, especially because Obama proposed these cuts in the first place. He knows he’s blowing smoke, so why does he do it?

There are several possible motives, none appealing. The most obvious is that he’s trying to put pressure on Republicans to support another round of tax hikes. He believes the government needs more money and that many Americans should pay more taxes or, as he puts it, “their fair share.”

But it’s folly. The tax hikes he got at the beginning of the year already have been spent. The $60 billion in revenues from higher income-tax rates on the top 1 percent were instantly pledged to Superstorm Sandy victims, without offsetting cuts elsewhere. The net added expense means the new taxes will not yield a dime of deficit reduction this year.

So now the president wants more taxes, and hasn’t pledged them for deficit reduction, which means he would spend them, too. With the economy slowing down, additional taxes could cause a recession.

Part of Obama’s motive is not, strictly speaking, about the money, but about the chip on his shoulder regarding wealth. Sharpton said Obama told him and other black leaders privately that “he did not get all he wanted from the rich” with this year’s income-tax hikes.

That certainly doesn’t sound like an economic argument. It sounds like retribution, maybe even reparations.

It is also possible Obama actually favors the cuts he claims to fear, hoping Republicans will be blamed. That, in turn, might set Democrats up to recapture the House in next year’s midterm elections.

In that case, Obama would be back to where he started in 2009 — with his party controlling all power in Washington.

A reasonable wish — but to what purpose? What would Obama do if he had that power again?

That’s the scary part. Given the far-left lurch of the first two years, a replay surely would speed up America’s decline. And remember Obama’s words to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev — that he would have “more flexibility” when he never had to face voters again.

That’s the future he sees, one without checks and balances on his power. If he gets it, Obama Unbound would make “Mad Max” look like the good old days.

It’s all about the truth, ken

A federal judge’s ruling that Ken Burns doesn’t need to give City Hall outtakes from his film on the Central Park jogger case reflects broad First Amendment protections. But having won his legal point, Burns should voluntarily release the material, especially any interviews with the defendants he cut from the film.

The work is not typical Burns fare. He and his daughter, Sarah, made their political agenda known, most explicitly through her 2011 book that served as a basis for the film. “The Central Park Five: A Chronicle of a City Wilding” charged that the media, police and politicians engaged in a racist conspiracy against the five young black and Latino men accused of raping and beating jogger Trisha Meili in 1989.

Their confessions helped convict the five teens at trial, but a career criminal later confessed and his DNA put him at the scene. After serving from seven to 13 years each, the defendants were released and sued New York for $50 million each.

Burns said he hoped the film would lead the city to settle the case with a payment. His daughter worked at a law firm representing the defendants.

Their ideological commitment surfaced again when Burns learned of the judge’s decision. He told The New York Times he hoped it would help get “a resolution for something that has haunted New York for far too long.”

Actually, the case hasn’t haunted New York the way Burns claims. There is no proof of misconduct by police or prosecutors, nor were the five men innocent bystanders.

They admitted to other crimes that night, and some investigators still believe their confessions about the jogger attack.

Burns’ court victory won’t change those facts. If he wants to help find the truth, he ought to reveal everything the five defendants told him. His refusal only makes their case weaker and his cause more suspect.

Chin up, Menendez

The journalist’s oath to “comfort the afflicted” compels me to try to help Sen. Robert Menendez. It’s not easy duty, with his corruption scandal causing a sudden 15-point drop in his approval ratings, a new poll says.

But hold on — the Quinnipiac survey also contains a silver lining.

While only 28 percent think the Democrat is honest and trustworthy, 36 percent approve of his job performance. Bingo — that’s political gold. Menendez can survive if he can find more voters happy to have a corrupt senator representing them. That shouldn’t be hard in New Jersey.

Dem contenders walk a ‘fine’ line

There they go again. Some of the Democratic mayoral candidates want to reduce city fines, saying they are scams to raise money for the city. Mayor Bloomberg denies it, but let’s assume the Dems are right.

Does this mean they’ll also propose cuts in spending to offset any reduction in city revenue?

Now that would be news.

The prez corps

Reader John Lacey agrees with my description of the national press corps as Obama lapdogs, but suggests a name change. Instead of national media, we should call them Government Media. “It fits better,” he says.